News Media gave blanket coverage to flawed climate paper

The media’s climate change coverage is even worse than we thought. If told aliens were running round the Arctic zapping icebergs with lasers, many of them would be keen to believe it – or at least that’s the impression often given.

A week ago, we were told that climate change was worse than we thought. But the underlying science contains a major error, reports The GWPF.

Independent climate scientist Nicholas Lewis has uncovered a major error in a recent scientific paper that was given blanket coverage in the English-speaking media.

The paper, written by a team led by Princeton oceanographer Laure Resplandy, claimed that the oceans have been warming faster than previously thought. It was announced, in news outlets including the BBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post and Scientific American that this meant that the Earth may warm even faster than currently estimated.

However Lewis, who has authored several peer-reviewed papers on the question of climate sensitivity and has worked with some of the world’s leading climate scientists, has found that the warming trend in the Resplandy paper differs from that calculated from the underlying data included with the paper.

“If you calculate the trend correctly, the warming rate is not worse than we thought – it’s very much in line with previous estimates,” says Lewis.

In fact, says Lewis, some of the other claims made in the paper and reported by the media, are wrong too.

Share this:

Like this:

Related

It’s the same as has been going on with London Underground overheating in the summer! There has been no critique of the TfL claims and one article follows another full of contradictions and bad science! How many other claims are full of hype and causing the real situations, and their solutions to be masked?

The fundamental premise of man-caused climate change is that the radiative greenhouse effect makes the surface of the earth 33 C warmer with an atmosphere than without an atmosphere, i.e. 288 K with minus 255 K without. What follows explains how that is simply not possible.
First off, the 15 C, 288 K, global average is a wild ass guesstimate pulled out of WMO’s butt.
The 255 K is the S-B BB calculated temperature of the net 0.3 albedo in/out top of atmosphere average 240 W/m^2 needed to maintain a habitable balance. (1,368/4=342*.7=240 & 255 K) The 255 K has absolutely no meaningful connection (Apophenia -WUWT) with the surface 288 K.
Without an atmosphere the earth would be much like the moon, albedo 0.12, ToA average of 301 W/m^2 not 240 W/m^2 and 25% more net incoming heat. The equivalent S-B BB calculated temperature would be 270 K not 255 K. No atmosphere means no vegetation, water, snow, ice, oceans, clouds, etc. and no longer a 0.3 albedo.
But this ToA averaged model is simplistic and unrealistic.
Say the atmospheric earth is 308 K lit side, 268 K dark side, average 288 K, range 40 C.
Say the non-atmospheric earth is 388 K lit side, 188 K dark side, average remains 288 K, range 200 C.
Identical averages, but the first model is habitable, the second is not, a meaningless comparison.
Let’s look at reality.
ISR (incoming solar radiation)
1,368 W/m^2, 0.0 albedo, net 1,368 W/m^2, S-B BB temperature is 394 K, 121 C, 250 F. This is why the ISS has a pair of redundant ammonia refrigerant coolers, chillers, AC systems. Space is hot, not cold.
Without atmosphere, i.e. lunarific
1,368 W/m^2, 0.12 albedo, net 1,204 W/m^2, S-B BB temperature is 382 K, 109 C, 228.2 F, above boiling point of water.
With atmosphere, i.e. earthy
1,368 W/m^2, 0.3 albedo, net 957.6 W/m^2, S-B BB temperature is 360.5 K. 87.5 C, 189.5 F, below boiling point of water.
The without atmosphere is quite clearly 21.5 C hotter (382.0 – 360.5), NOT 33 C colder, than the with it atmosphere.
Without an atmosphere the earth will be much like the moon, blistering hot on the lit side, bitter cold on the dark and most certainly NOT the average 255 K frozen ice ball that RGHE claims.

Want a break, have a Kat-Kit ! the foil on it is less than 1 mm but can be folded over to make 1 mm. – but as they said on the BBC Brek prog. – that the object was only a millimetre thick ? Just had to roll my eyes ….